{"id":174326,"date":"2009-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-11T08:29:09","modified_gmt":"2018-10-11T02:59:09","slug":"tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009<\/div>\n
RFA No. 1823 of 1990                                 [1]\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                         AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                Date of decision: March 30 ,2009\n(1)    R.F.A. No. 1823 of 1990 (O&M)\n\nTarlok Chand and another                                   .. Appellants\n            Vs.\n\nState of Haryana                                           .. Respondent<\/pre>\n
(2)    R.F.A. No. 1824 of 1990 (O&M)\n\nSuresh Chand and others                                    .. Appellants\n            Vs.\n\nState of Haryana                                           .. Respondent\n\n(3)    R.F.A. No. 1869 of 1990 (O&M)\n\nSmt. Nirmala Devi                                          .. Appellant\n            Vs.\n\nState of Haryana                                           .. Respondent\n\n(4)    R.F.A. No. 1870 of 1990 (O&M)\n\nKusum Goel                                                 .. Appellant\n               Vs.\n\nState of Haryana                                           .. Respondent\n\n(5)    R.F.A. No. 1869-A of 1991 (O&M)\n\nState of Haryana                                           .. Appellant\n             Vs.\n\nKusum Goel                                                 .. Respondent\n\n\n(6)    R.F.A. No. 1871 of 1991 (O&M)\n\nState of Haryana                                           .. Appellant\n             Vs.\n\nSuresh Chand and others                                    .. Respondents\n\n\n(7)    R.F.A. No. 1873 of 1991 (O&M)\n\nState of Haryana                                           .. Appellant\n             Vs.\n\nSmt. Nirmala Devi                                          .. Respondent\n RFA No. 1823 of 1990                                    [2]\n\n(8)      R.F.A. No. 1874 of 1991 (O&M)\n\nState of Haryana                                              .. Appellant\n             Vs.\n\nTarlok Chand and another                                      .. Respondent\n\n(9)      R.F.A. No. 2784 of 1994 (O&M)\n\nMaha Singh and others                                         .. Appellants\n            Vs.\n\nState of Haryana and others                                   .. Respondents\n\n(10)     R.F.A. No. 40 of 1995 (O&M)\n\nRattan                                                        .. Appellant\n               Vs.\n\nState of Haryana and another                                  .. Respondents\n\n(11)     R.F.A. No. 468 of 1995 (O&M)\n\nBal Kishan and another                                        .. Appellants\n             Vs.\n\nState of Haryana and others                                   .. Respondents\n\n(12)     R.F.A. No. 1663 of 1995 (O&M)\n\nPunjab Wakf Board                                             .. Appellant\n            Vs.\n\nState of Haryana and others                                   .. Respondents\n\n\n(13)     R.F.A. No. 1664 of 1995 (O&M)\n\nPunjab Wakf Board                                             .. Appellant\n            Vs.\n\nState of Haryana and others                                   .. Respondents\n\n\nCORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL\n\nPresent:       S\/Shri Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with S.K.Garg Narwana,\n               Amit Jain, S. S. Duhan, Rajesh Kumar for\n               Pritam Saini and Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Ghumman for\n<\/pre>\n
               Shri G. S. Bhatia, Advocates for the land owners.\n<\/p>\n
               Shri Partap Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
\n               Haryana for the State.\n<\/p>\n
 RFA No. 1823 of 1990                                       [3]\n\nRajesh Bindal J.\n<\/pre>\n
               This order will dispose of a bunch of 13 appeals, as common
\nquestions of law and facts are involved.\n<\/p>\n
                R.F.A. Nos. 1823, 1824, 1869 and 1870 of 1990 have been filed by
\nthe land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the land
\nacquired vide notification dated 27.7.1987.\n<\/p>\n
               R.F.A. Nos. 2784 of 1994, 40, 468, 1663 and 1664 of 1995 have
\nbeen filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for
\nthe land acquired vide notification dated 14.8.1987.\n<\/p>\n
               R.F.A. Nos. 1869-A, 1871, 1873 and 1874 of 1991 have been filed
\nby State seeking reduction of the amount of compensation for the land acquired
\nvide notification dated 27.7.1987.\n<\/p>\n
               Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 88 kanals and 2 marlas,
\nsituated in the revenue estate of Safidon was acquired vide notification dated
\n27.7.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
\n`the Act’) for the purpose of construction of Sub Division Offices and residences
\nof officers\/officials of sub division Safidon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for
\nshort, `the Collector’) gave award of Rs. 80,000\/- per acre. Aggrieved against the
\nsame, the land owners       filed objections which were referred to the learned
\nAdditional District Judge, Jind, who keeping in view the material placed on record
\nby the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land of claimants Kusum
\nGoel and Nirmala @ Rs. 163\/- per square yard and the remaining land was
\nassessed @ Rs. 109\/- per square yard.\n<\/p>\n
               Vide another notification dated 14.8.1987, issued under Section 4 of
\nthe Act, land measuring 52 acres and 18 marlas, situated in village Safidon,
\nHadbast No. 54, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind for the establishment of New Grain
\nMarket at Safidon. The same was followed by notification dated 12.8.1988, issued
\nunder Section 6 of the Act. The Collector gave award of Rs. 80,000\/- per acre for
\nNehri, Chahi, Barani and Roshli land and Rs. 1,00,000\/- per acre for Gair Mumkin
\nkind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which
\nwere referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, who keeping in view
\nthe material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the
\nacquired land @ Rs. 109\/- per square yard.\n<\/p>\n
                Against the aforesaid award of the learned court below, it is only
\nsome of the land owners who are in appeal seeking further enhancement of
\ncompensation. Learned counsel for the State did not point out that any appeal has
\nbeen filed by the State challenging the aforesaid award.\n<\/p>\n
 RFA No. 1823 of 1990                                       [4]<\/p>\n
               It is relevant to mention here that earlier the land owners as well as
\nState filed appeals before this Court against the awards of the learned Reference
\nCourt pertaining to the acquisition vide notification dated 27.7.1987. In RFA No.
\n1871 of 1991–The State of Haryana . Suresh Chand and others, this Court set
\naside the award of the learned Reference Court and upheld that of the Collector.
\nIn Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment of this Court was upheld. However, in Civil
\nAppeal No. 6602 of 2000– Tarlok Chand and another v. State of Haryana, decided
\non 31.7.2001, Hon’ble the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to this Court
\nfor fresh decision. That is how the present appeals are before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
               Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the matter having
\nbeen remitted back by Hon’ble the Supreme Court for fresh consideration in view
\nof the evidence on record, the sale deeds, as are produced on record by the land
\nowners, are required to be considered for the purpose of determination of fair
\nvalue of the acquired land. The submission is that as far as location of the land is
\nconcerned, the facts noticed by the learned court below in paragraph 9 of the
\nimpugned award are not in dispute. The land owners in the present case had
\nproduced on record 8 sale deeds, namely, Ex. P4 to Ex. P11. Barring sale deed (Ex.
\nP11), all were registered prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the
\nAct. The land pertaining to three sale deeds (Ex. P8 to Ex. P10) is forming part of
\nthe acquired land, whereas sale deed (Ex. P11), which was registered on
\n29.11.1988 clearly shows the trend of prices in the area, which is also a relevant
\nfactor for the purpose of determination of fair value of he acquired land. They
\nfurther submitted that even trend in prices is evident if sale deeds (Ex. P8 to Ex.
\nP10) are considered vis-a-vis sale deeds (Ex. P4 to Ex. P7) and with sale deed
\n(Ex. P11). The land pertaining even to sale deeds (Ex. P4 to Ex. P7 and Ex. P11)
\nis also located quite close to the acquired land. Considering the fact that the land in
\nquestion is situated within the municipal limits quite close to the bus stand, cut,
\nwhich is required to be applied should not be more than 20%. Reliance is placed
\nupon Deputy Director Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu and others<\/a>, 2007(1)
\nRCR (Civil) 894.\n<\/p>\n
               In R.F.A. No. 2784 of 1994, the submission is that the evidence,
\nwhich is relied upon in the aforesaid cases, is good even for the purpose of
\ndetermination of fair value of the acquired land therein, as earlier also the learned
\ncourt below had relied upon the same evidence. The land forming part thereof is
\nlocated on main Assandh-Panipat road, which is even more strategic as compared
\nto the land which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sub Division
\nOffices and residences of officers\/officials of Sub Division, Safidon and
\n RFA No. 1823 of 1990                                      [5]<\/p>\n
accordingly, even for that chunk of land also, the same amount of compensation
\ndeserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
               Learned counsel for the State submitted that the land pertaining to
\nsale instances (Ex. P8 to Ex. P10) was located on a road. A clear finding has been
\nrecorded to that effect in the earlier judgment of this Court, whereby the award of
\nthe learned court below granting compensation @ Rs 109\/- per square yard was set
\naside. He further submitted that it was only small plots which were dealt with in
\nsale deeds (Ex. P8 to Ex. P10) and the same cannot be considered safe basis for
\ndetermination of value of large chunk of land. These small plots were purchased
\nby the parties therein for commercial purpose, considering the fact that bus stand
\nwas going to be constructed close to that. As far as other sale deeds, relied upon by
\nthe land owners, are concerned, the submission is that as Division Bench judgment
\nof this Court was set aside by Hon’ble the Supreme Court only on the issue of
\nconsideration of sale instances (Ex. P8 to Ex. P10), it does not lie in the mouth of
\nthe land owners to refer to any other evidence at this stage, as the matter was
\nremitted back for consideration of those sale deeds only which formed part of the
\nacquired land. On earlier occasion, those sale deeds were not considered as the
\nvendors and the vendees had not been produced which was not required in view of
\nthe subsequent judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
               Without prejudice to the submissions made above, it was submitted
\nthat even if the aforesaid sale deeds of small plots are considered by this Court to
\nbe relevant piece of evidence, a reasonable cut is required to be applied which
\ncannot possibly be only 20%, as is sought to be claimed by the land owners, it
\nshould be at least 50%.\n<\/p>\n
               As far as the land acquired for the purpose of setting up of Grain
\nMarket vide notification dated 14.8.1987 is concerned, the submission is that this
\nchunk of land was located far off from the city. There was rajbaha No. 2 in
\nbetween. Some portion of that land was abutting Assandh-Panipat road. However,
\nthe other portion was abutting the rajbaha. The depth from the road was 8-10
\nacres. That portion of land did not carry the same value at the time of acquisition,
\nas the value of the land in the city was.\n<\/p>\n
               Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance
\nperused the relevant referred record.\n<\/p>\n
               As far as location of the land is concerned, the learned court below
\nhad noticed the same in the impugned award in paragraph 9 thereto, which is not in
\ndispute. The same is extracted as under:\n<\/p>\n
               “(i) Land under acquisition is situated within the municipal limits of
\n RFA No. 1823 of 1990                                           [6]<\/p>\n
                       Safidon;\n<\/p>\n
               (ii) Land under acquisition has been acquired for construction of
\n                       Sub Divisional Offices and residences. In other words the land
\n                       under acquisition has been acquired for the construction of mini
\n                       secretariat and residences for the officers\/officials;\n<\/p>\n
               (iii) There is Rampura road towards north of the acquired land.\n<\/p>\n
                       There is kacha rasta towards north of the acquired land.
\n                       Towards west north there is Rajbaha;\n<\/p>\n
               (iv) There is new bus stand across the road from the eastern corner
\n                       of the acquired land;\n<\/p>\n
               (v) There is Alora theatre adjoining the new bus stand;\n<\/p>\n
               (vi) Abadi of city Safidon, as shown in duly proved site plan Ex. P2
\n                       is at a distance of 1-1-1\/4th kms;\n<\/p>\n
               (vii) There are few shops adjoining the Alora theatre abutting
\n                       Rampura road; and\n<\/p>\n
               (viii) Few scattered houses had also come up towards southern –\n<\/p>\n
                       eastern side of the acquired land.”\n<\/p>\n
               The land owners in the present cases had impugned the earlier
\njudgment of this court in Suresh Chand’s case (supra) setting aside the award of
\nthe learned court below, before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It was noticed by
\nHon’ble the Supreme Court in Tarlok Chand’s case (supra) that the short question
\nwhich arose in the set of appeals was as to whether sale deeds (Ex. P8 to Ex. P10)
\nwere rightly rejected by the High Court while determining fair value of the land
\nacquired vide notification dated 27.7.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The
\nappeal was disposed of finally with the following findings:\n<\/p>\n
               “In Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v.<\/p>\n
               Narasaiah, 2001(3) SCC 530 and in State of Haryana v. Ram Singh,
\n               C.A. No.<\/a> 6016\/99 decided on 25.7.2001, it was held that it is not
\n               necessary for the claimant to examine the vendor or vendee to prove
\n               the certified copies of sale deeds which are sought to be relied upon
\n               as exemplor for purposes of determining the market value of the
\n               acquired land. In view of the said decisions, we find that the view
\n               taken by the high Court that Exhibits P8 to P10 were not proved in
\n               the absence of examination of vendor or vendee is untenable. The
\n               second ground on which Exhibits P8 to P10 were rejected, was not
\n               based on any material on record. We have carefully gone through the
\n               records of the case but do not find any iota of evidence or material on
\n RFA No. 1823 of 1990                                       [7]<\/p>\n
               record which may show that the claimants had got the sale deeds
\n               (Exhibits P8 to P10) executed only to create evidence for claiming
\n               higher rate of compensation in the event their land is acquired in
\n               future. In fact, the finding of the High Court that Exhibit P8 to P10
\n               probably were executed only to create evidence for claiming higher
\n               rate of compensation and, therefore, are not genuine documents, is
\n               not supported by any evidence on record and is, in fact, based on
\n               conjectures and surmises. We, therefore, find that the second ground
\n               on which the High Court rejected Exhibits P8 to P10 while
\n               determining the market value of the acquired land was erroneous.
\n               However, there is substance in the view taken by the High Court that
\n               since Exhibits P8 to P10 relate to small pieces of land and, therefore,
\n               do not represent the correct market value of the acquired land. But at
\n               what extent Exhibits P8 to P10 are relevant for determining the
\n               market value of acquired land, it is for the court of fact to decide.
\n               Since Exhibit P8 to P10 were rejected outright by the High Court
\n               while determining the rate of compensation for the acquired land on
\n               untenable grounds, we are of the view that the matter requires
\n               reconsideration by the High Court. We, accordingly, set aside the
\n               judgment under challenge and remit the matter to the learned Single
\n               Judge of the High Court to decide the appeals in the light of the
\n               observation made hereinbefore and in accordance with law.”
\n               In the light of the aforesaid observations of Hon’ble the Supreme
\nCourt, all what is required to be considered is the evidentiary value of sale deeds
\n(Ex. P8 to Ex. P10) and none else. The contention of learned counsel for the land
\nowners that said sale deeds are also required to be considered is totally
\nmisconceived in the light of the findings of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The
\ngenuineness of the aforesaid sale deeds is not doubted, as the finding to the
\ncontrary of this Court was set aside by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
               Now the issue for consideration is as to how much weightage is to be
\ngiven to the aforesaid sale deeds which are admittedly forming part of the acquired
\nland. Vide sale deed (Ex. P8) dated 6.8.1984, land measuring 120 square yards
\nwas sold for Rs. 14,400\/-. Vide sale deed (Ex. P9) dated 6.8.1984, land measuring
\n90 square yards was sold for Rs. 10,800\/- and vide sale deed (Ex. P10) dated
\n6.8.1984, land measuring 120 square yards was sold for Rs. 14,400\/-. The average
\nprice of these sale deeds comes out to Rs. 120\/- per square yard.\n<\/p>\n
               As far as location of the land forming part of the aforesaid three sale
\n RFA No. 1823 of 1990                                       [8]<\/p>\n
deeds registered for small plots is concerned, a finding was recorded in the earlier
\njudgment of this Court, when the appeals were earlier decided on 1.7.1997 that the
\nsame is located on kacha rasta connected to the canal bridge and then to Railway
\nRoad of Safidon town. Meaning thereby that it had some special advantage
\nattached to it. However, as the sale deeds were registered 3 years prior to the
\nacquisition, considering the trend in prices. As it was acquisition of a small piece
\nof land measuring 88 kanals and 2 marlas, which as per the site plan, is surrounded
\nby road\/rasta on three sides and the same being quite close to the city, the entire
\nchunk of land being within the municipal limits and old and new bus stand, theatre
\nand other commercial establishments being in the vicinity, I deem it appropriate to
\ngrant increase @ 12% per annum thereon. Granting the same for a period of 3
\nyears, the value of the land dealt with in the sale deeds as on the date of issuance
\nof notification under Section 4 of the Act comes out to Rs. 168\/- per square yard
\n(rounded of).\n<\/p>\n
                There is another aspect of the matter that is that initially for the
\nacquisition vide notification dated 27.7.1987, the learned court below assessed the
\nmarket value of the land @ Rs. 109\/- per square yard, which was set aside by this
\nCourt, but the matter was remitted back by Hon’ble the Supreme Court for fresh
\nconsideration in appeals filed by some of the land owners. Same amount of
\ncompensation was assessed to be paid to the land owners, whose land was
\nacquired for the purpose of setting up of New Grain Market vide notification dated
\n14.8.1987. It is only nine appeals filed by the land owners seeking further
\nenhancement of compensation pertaining to subsequent acquisition, which have
\nbeen listed before this Court. Learned counsel for the State did not point out as to
\nwhether the aforesaid award was challenged by the State. He had also not pointed
\nout that any appeal arising out of acquisition for setting up of New Grain Market
\nwas either earlier decided or is still pending.\n<\/p>\n
                Now the fact situation is that the award pertaining to the acquisition
\nof land for Grain Market, whereby 52 acres and 18 marlas of land was acquired,
\nhas been accepted by the State where the compensation was assessed at Rs. 109\/-
\nper square yard, relying upon the award pertaining to the acquisition of land for
\nthe purpose of construction of Sub Division Offices and residences of
\nofficers\/officials of Sub Division, Safidon vide notification dated 27.7.1987. The
\nland pertaining to that acquisition is located in the city, whereas the land which
\nwas acquired for New Grain Market is located on main Assandh-Panipat road. It is
\nfor this reason that the learned court below had granted same amount of
\ncompensation to the land owners therein. Even the Collector had also assessed
\n RFA No. 1823 of 1990                                      [9]<\/p>\n
value of both the chunks of land at same rates. Once the State had already accepted
\nthe award pertaining to the acquisition of land for New Grain Market @ Rs. 109\/-
\nper square yard, I do not find any reason not to grant            same amount of
\ncompensation to the land owners, whose land was acquired for the purpose of
\nconstruction of Sub Division Offices and residences of officers\/officials of Sub
\nDivision, Safidon. Even otherwise, the same is justifiable on the basis of
\nindependent evidence on record in these cases. The average value of the three sale
\ndeeds (Ex. P8 to Ex. P10) comes out to Rs. 168\/- per square yard. Even if a cut of
\n35% is applied considering the fact that the land is within the municipal limits
\nclose to new bus stand and other abadi area, the value comes out to Rs. 109.20 per
\nsquare yard, which is close to the value already assessed by the learned court
\nbelow, which award was earlier set aside only on technical ground.\n<\/p>\n
               For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the land
\nowners pertaining to the acquisition of land vide notification dated 27.7.1987 are
\naccepted. They are held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 109\/- per square yard. The
\nland owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.
\nThe appeals filed by the State seeking reduction of compensation pertaining to the
\naforesaid acquisition are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
               As far as the appeals filed by the land owners pertaining to the
\nacquisition vide notification dated 14.8.1987 are concerned, I do not find any
\nreason to increase the amount of compensation already assessed by the learned
\ncourt below, as the evidence produced by the land owners therein does not justify
\nthe same. The sale deeds which were produced there are already part of the
\nevidence in the earlier acquisition, the award of which was relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
               The appeals are disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (Rajesh Bindal)
\n                                                              Judge
\nMarch 30 ,2009\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009 RFA No. 1823 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: March 30 ,2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 1823 of 1990 (O&M) Tarlok Chand and another .. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana .. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174326","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-11T02:59:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-11T02:59:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3074,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-11T02:59:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-11T02:59:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-11T02:59:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009"},"wordCount":3074,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009","name":"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-11T02:59:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarlok-chand-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tarlok Chand And Another vs State Of Haryana on 30 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174326","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174326"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174326\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}